Samsung has been ordered by San Jose Federal Court judge Lucy Koh to provide Apple with samples of its unreleased tablets and smartphones as part of an ongoing patent dispute, allowing Apple to seek a timely motion of preliminary injunction.

Last week's ruling, reported by Courthouse News Service, came in response to a motion by Apple for expedited discovery, seeking early production of documents and witnesses.

Apple's case against Samsung claims that its competitor and component supplier had "designed products confusingly similar to Apple's iPad, iPod Touch and iPhone, and that the products use icons similar to those used by Apple," according to the report.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits of Apple's claims, the court acknowledged that "Apple has produced images of Samsung products and other evidence that provide a reasonable basis for Apple's belief that Samsung's new products are designed to mimic Apple's products."

The judge did not agree to allow Apple to depose Samsung executives on the same accelerated schedule, stating that "to require Samsung to prepare for a deposition on such broad topics, and on such a tight timeline, would be unduly burdensome."

The advanced discovery is limited to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning that Apple's engineering staff and in-house legal team will not have access to the materials. Apple's legal team handling the suit will determine wether to file for an injunction blocking the devices from being sold.

Samsung has grown to become the most successful Android licensee, but its products and packaging have more closely copied Apple's than those of other Android makers, and other tablet and smartphone makers in general.

This January, Samsung announced a "digital hub" strategy that appeared closely patterned after Apple's own from 2001, except that Samsung put its own HDTVs in the center instead of Apple's iMac.

The company also unveiled new Galaxy Tab models intended to more closely rival the iPad, but when Apple released iPad 2, the company stated it would be 'improving the parts that are inadequate" on its new models to match Apple's design.

Samsung later released hardware tablet prototypes it claimed were thinner than iPad 2, although some reporters disputed the firm's claims.

After negations failed to resolve the contention between the two companies, Apple filed suit against Samsung, alleging trade dress and patent infringement. The group that designs Galaxy products within Samsung is separate from the groups that produce components for Apple, including RAM and the fabrication of Apple's A4 and A5 application processors used in the iPhone and iPad.

Yes!! Sue these posers now! I am so sick of all the lookalike products. Droid this and droid that, blah blah blah. Where were all these fully touch-screen smart phones prior to the iPhone? Oh yeah....there weren't any!!

Samsung has been ordered by San Jose Federal Court judge Lucy Koh to provide Apple with samples of its unreleased tablets and smartphones as part of an ongoing patent dispute, allowing Apple to seek a timely motion of preliminary injunction.

So, can Samsung reasonably ignore this court order? It appears that Samsung is behind the 8-ball.

This does not set any precedent. The precedent for this was set years ago with auto manufacturers.

Second, Apple is not in the business of blatant rip-offs to the degree that trade dress is involved, certainly not to Samsung's degree, so they have little to worry about in the future. It's usually *everyone else* that's left looking guilty. So let's not forget Apple's modus operandi.

You can ignore it if you want your containers seized at customs and your retail chain partners to get their stores locked down and searched during business hours, fined and have your USA headquarters raided by the feds. Not really a viable option.

Yes, I know Samsung has set a dangerous precedent for itself so blatantly stealing Apple's designs. I don't get it either, as Samsung makes some really nice TV's. I can't think of Apple every mimicking the design of anybody else. Sometimes that is a bad thing, like with the hockey puck mouse.

Yes, I know Samsung has set a dangerous precedent for itself so blatantly stealing Apple's designs. I don't get it either, as Samsung makes some really nice TV's. I can't think of Apple every mimicking the design of anybody else. Sometimes that is a bad thing, like with the hockey puck mouse.

Samsung is a very large company,
one division must of gotten loose and crazy .

I am tired of all this all these lawsuits.
I guess thats the world now .

Yes!! Sue these posers now! I am so sick of all the lookalike products. Droid this and droid that, blah blah blah. Where were all these fully touch-screen smart phones prior to the iPhone? Oh yeah....there weren't any!!

I'm about as pro Apple as you can get, but I don't think I agree with allowing the competition a look at future products. Is Samsung copying Apple? Absolutely! But, if this ruling was against Apple, we would all be jumping up and down pissed.

I'm about as pro Apple as you can get, but I don't think I agree with allowing the competition a look at future products. Is Samsung copying Apple? Absolutely! But, if this ruling was against Apple, we would all be jumping up and down pissed.

You're right, if this was Apple being sued for blatantly ripping Samsung off, I would be extremely pissed. I'd be jumping up and down shouting "Why, why, why is Apple ripping off a shitty bunch of posers like Samsung!?"

This does not set any precedent. The precedent for this was set years ago with auto manufacturers.

Second, Apple is not in the business of blatant rip-offs to the degree that trade dress is involved, certainly not to Samsung's degree, so they have little to worry about in the future. It's usually *everyone else* that's left looking guilty. So let's not forget Apple's modus operandi.

Really? Was the Macintosh not a blatant ripoff of the Star? How quickly we forget.

This does not set any precedent. The precedent for this was set years ago with auto manufacturers.

Second, Apple is not in the business of blatant rip-offs to the degree that trade dress is involved, certainly not to Samsung's degree, so they have little to worry about in the future. It's usually *everyone else* that's left looking guilty. So let's not forget Apple's modus operandi.

Your wrong. If Apple wins in this lawsuit it will set a precedent for all others who will target Apple if it makes ANY device that is even remotely similar looking or similar featured to one of their devices. Since Apple was claiming intellectual property rights on the PART of the design, like silver lining, rounded corners and even how the icons look, other companies will sue with the drop of a hat from now on. They will use this lawsuit as a reference to further their claims.

It sets a dangerous precedent for sue happy companies to fire at each other like never before.

Companies will be suing each other for "copying" their color scheme, their general shapes and even the sounds that each of their phones makes. It could back fire on Apple if they slip off. Even down to the hertz or noise that each of the vibration motors smartphones make when its in silent mode.

At the end of the day, the only people who will be winning are the lawyers, as always.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400." - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Your wrong. If Apple wins in this lawsuit it will set a precedent for all others who will target Apple if it makes ANY device that is even remotely similar looking or similar featured to one of their devices. Since Apple was claiming intellectual property rights on the PART of the design, like silver lining, rounded corners and even how the icons look, other companies will sue with the drop of a hat from now on. They will use this lawsuit as a reference to further their claims.

It sets a dangerous precedent for sue happy companies to fire at each other like never before.

Companies will be suing each other for "copying" their color scheme, their general shapes and even the sounds that each of their phones makes. It could back fire on Apple if they slip off. Even down to the hertz or noise that each of the vibration motors smartphones make when its in silent mode.

At the end of the day, the only people who will be winning are the lawyers, as always.

Totally agree. Apple should be wary as Nokia has a very large number of patents on many aspects of cell phone technology.

Well you cant copy someones product that closely without problems because of the trade dress protection. Ive myself many times made the mistake at first thinking that its an iphone 3Gs picture but its a picture of a samsung phone from the frontside... Im no lawyer but if most people of the street might confuse the two then you are on seriously deep waters.
Samsung has seriously bent the line here and have been wondering for a long time now why Apple didnt do anything about it. But ist all the sweeter if Samsung cant get out of this and they manufacured over 10 million phones of those... It will be big damages if they are considered guilty...

The intresting thing of course is how their prototypes have been evolving as they are also are the manufacurer of Apple phones....

The title "Samsung ordered to show its new prototypes to Apple" is pretty misleading. The court order clearly states the prototypes will only be shown to outside council and not to Apple's in-house legal team or anyone in Apple's engineering department. This is done to protect Samsung from Apple stealing their designs or getting any kind of head start advantage from the sneak peek.

The AppleInsider story clearly says this:

"The advanced discovery is limited to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning that Apple's engineering staff and in-house legal team will not have access to the materials."

Because its basically allowing Apple to see a Samsung product that they believe to infringe on their patents. Admittedly as someone already pointed out the products are already on public display and its not everyone at Apple that can see it (although they could just move people around so an engineer is now part of the legal council).

So if this is allowed what about all the people are suing Apple for similar things. Only fair that they should be able to see the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 for the same reasons.

The original iPhone was accused by technically illiterate bloggers, of being similar to some LG device, or other. The LG device was a full screen phone, with no keyboard, but there the similarity ended. Was it a copy? No. Could we always rely on courts to know this? No.

The precedent is not a legal precedent, well not just a legal precedent, but a precedent For APple. Apple have managed to get another company - and a large one - to show it's future products because of similarities in look and feel of the hardware, and to an extent, the software ( or more specifically, the launcher). However the actual running software is quite different. This opens Apple up to counter suits if it ever tries to do something to iOS which has been done before on Android. Or WebOS. Notifications, maybe, but something.

Because its basically allowing Apple to see a Samsung product that they believe to infringe on their patents. Admittedly as someone already pointed out the products are already on public display and its not everyone at Apple that can see it (although they could just move people around so an engineer is now part of the legal council).

Doesn't anybody know how to read any more? NO ONE at Apple can see the products. Only Apple's outside legal counsel. What part of "The advanced discovery is limited to "Outside Counsel Eyes Only," meaning that Apple's engineering staff and in-house legal team will not have access to the materials" don't you understand?

And make an engineer their legal counsel? Do you have ANY idea how foolish that idea is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by timgriff84

So if this is allowed what about all the people are suing Apple for similar things. Only fair that they should be able to see the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 for the same reasons.

Not at all. The issues here (trade dress) require an examination of the finished product. The patent infringement issues that others are suing for are simple technical matters ("does your product do xyz by using abc?") which does not require examination of the product.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

So if I'm understanding the internet lawyers correctly, a particular ruling in a particular case wherein Samsung has pretty evidently done a blatant job of copying the trade dress of Apple products will lead to the ruination of Apple itself because now the whole idea of "trade dress" will inexplicably be expanded to include anything anyone wants it to, and the "precedent" set by this particular ruling in this particular case will make it likely such random litigation will prevail.

Because the legal system doesn't concern itself with the particulars or rigor of a given case, but instead relies on broad categories such as "someone sued someone for something and won so now all such lawsuits are winnable", apparently.

If Apple prevails it will be because they had a case and made it. No new principle is being articulated, and the bit about allowing outside council to have a look at upcoming products doesn't change that.

The judge in the case specifically noted that his ruling derived from the fact that the images Apple produced provided a reasonable basis for their complaint. I imagine if Apple takes to producing devices that closely mimic a competitors products then they'll possibly be subject to similar treatment, should they prevail in this case. Just like anyone copying trade dress has been all along.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.